X. 


What  is  Prison  Reform? 


BY  REV.  FREDERICK  H.  V/INES. 


Has  Crime  Increased  in  Massachusetts  ? 


BY  WARREN  F.  SPALDING. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PRISON  ASSOCIATION, 
No.  1  Pemberton  Square,  Boston. 

1892. 


Massachusetts  *  Prison  *  Association, | 

(Organized  December  9,  1889.) 

OFFICE:  1  PEMBERTON  SQUARE,  ROOMS  10  AND  11. 

President,  Samuel  Eliot. 

Treasurer,  Chas.  C.  Jackson,  vi  (  Henry  Lee, 

24  Congress  Street.  v  ce  *Tesiaen*;s»  j  Richard  H.  Dana. 

Secretary,  Warren  F.  Spalding. 


BOARD  OF  DIREOTORS: 


Samuel  Eliot, 
Frederick  B.  Allen, 

E.  D.  Barbour, 

Samuel  J.  Barrows, 
Mrs.  Susan  H.  Bertram, 
Charles  W.  Birtwell, 
J.  Richard  Carter, 
Alexander  Cochrane, 
Charles  P.  Curtis,  Jr., 
Edward  Cummings, 


W.  S.  Fitz, 

William  Elliot  Griffis, 
Mrs.  Eliza  L.  Homans, 
Miss  Ellen  F.  Mason, 
Frank  Morison, 

Robert  Treat  Paine, 
Miss  Lucy  A.  Read, 
Joseph  G.  Thorp,  Jr., 
William  W.  Vaughan, 
Moses  Williams. 


OBJECTS  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 

1.  To  enlighten  public  opinion  concerning  the  prevention  and  treat¬ 
ment  of  crime. 

2.  To  secure  the  improvement  of  penal  legislation. 

3.  To  protect  society  from  habitual  criminals. 

4.  To  befriend  the  innocent  and  ignorant  under  accusation. 

5.  To  promote  the  welfare  of  those  placed  on  probation  by  the  courts, 
and  also  of  the  families  of  prisoners. 

6.  To  aid  released  prisoners  in  living  honorably. 


MEMBERSHIP. 

The  payment  of  two  dollars  constitutes  any  person  a  member  of  this 
Association.  The  payment  of  twenty-five  dollars  at  one  time  constitutes 
a  life-member,  and  the  payment  of  one  hundred  dollars  an  honorary 
life-member. 


An  address  delivered  by  the  Rev.  Frederick  H.  Wines,  Secretary  of 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  of  Illinois,  in  the  Old  South  Church, 
Boston,  January  13th,  1892,  before  the  Massachusetts  Prison 
Association. 


published  by 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PRISON  ASSOCIATION, 
No.  1  Pemberton  Square,  Boston. 

1892. 


i  « 


* 


\ 


OOGioIo^Hpv  o  f  ft  tfltc 


3  (o  D  & 


l  2 

What  is  Prison  Reform? 


Every  patriotic  citizen  of  the  United  States,  every  lover  of  humanity, 
must  feel  himself  at  home  in  Boston.  After  saying  so  much,  I  hardly  dare 
to  say  that  I  feel  very  much  at  home  here  myself.  There  is  no  city  in  the 
Union  from  which  it  is  so  hard  for  me  to  tear  myself  away. 

Naturally,  then,  it  affords  me  pleasure  to  render  any  service  to  one  of 
the  youngest,  but  by  no  means  the  least  important,  of  your  local  charities. 
The  repression  of  crime  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  most  important  task  which 
the  state  has  to  perform,  except  its  prevention.  The  Prison  Association  is 
not  a  recognized  official  bureau  of  your  state  government,  but  it  is  none  the 
less  a  very  real  and  valuable  adjunct  to  it.  In  a  free  country,  whose  poli¬ 
tical  ideal  is  self-government,  the  actual  constitution  is  far  more  compre¬ 
hensive  and  more  flexible  than  the  written  instrument  which  we  call  by  that 
name.  It  includes  not  only  the  institutions  and  agencies  listed  in  that 
compact  and  bond  of  union,  but  many  others,  such  as  the  caucus  and  the 
convention,  by  means  of  which  the  people  ascertain  and  execute  their 
^  political  purposes.  It  includes,  indeed,  all  associations  for  the  promotion 
of  the  public  welfare,  whose  voluntary  action  tends  in  any  degree  to  ren¬ 
der  less  necessary  the  more  formal  intervention  of  the  constituted  author¬ 
ities,  or  whose  influence  upon  public  opinion  affords  a  solid  support  to 
popular  government.  In  this  sense  the  Massachusetts  Prison  Association 
may  be  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  machinery  by  which  the  people  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  govern  themselves,  and  so  preserve  their  political  independence. 
You  are  scarcely  conscious  of  your  own  dignity,  and  good  men  who  do  not 
rally  to  your  support  do  not  rightly  appreciate  the  respect  in  which  your 
work  should  be  held. 


COMMON  MISAPPREHENSIONS. 

This  popular  indifference  is  no  doubt  due  partly  to  ignorance  and 
partly  to  misunderstanding  and  prejudice.  It  is  a  very  common  supposition 

* 


2 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


that  you  are  a  company  of  sentimentalists,  with  perverted  sympathies,  and 
incapable  of  righteous  indignation  against  crime.  You  are  believed  to  be 
so  in  love  with  the  criminal  that  your  feelings  have  run  away  with  your 
judgment,  and  that  you  are  blind  to  the  demands  of  justice  and  the  rights  of 
the  innocent.  You,  who  are  banded  together  for  the  single  purpose  of 
warring  against  crime,  are  charged  with  having  done  more  for  its  promo¬ 
tion  than  all  the  known  and  acknowledged  children  of  darkness.  You  do 
wrong  when  you  seek  to  mitigate  the  horrors  of  prison  life,  because  }ou 
make  legal  punishment  less  deterrent  to  evil-doers.  You  do  wrong  in  en¬ 
deavoring  to  secure  the  reformation  of  the  prisoner,  because  yuu  encourage 
and  reward  hypocrisy  in  the  prison.  You  inflict  a  positive  injury  on 
society  by  lending  a  helping  hand  to  the  discharged  convict.  Your  princi¬ 
ples  tend  to  the  subversion  of  the  law,  and  your  disregard  of  the  eternal 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong  in  the  persons  of  the  innocent  and  the 
guilty  is  irreligious  and  immoral.  Victims  of  an  amiable  delusion,  in  pur¬ 
suit  of  a  chimerical  benefit,  you  would  lay  upon  the  wealth  of  the  country, 
and  therefore  upon  its  poverty  also,  an  additional  burden  of  expense  which 
can  yield  no  adequate  return.  That  is  the  indictment  against  you,  plainly 
stated,  in  language  less  polite  than  your  opponents  would  use, — to  your 
face  at  least. 


AN  UNFOUNDED  CHARGE. 

Now,  who  is  entitled  to  bring  this  charge?  And  how  much  truth  is 
there  in  it? 

The  charge  is,  in  the  first  place,  unscientific.  Science  bases  her  con¬ 
clusions  upon  ascertained  and  demonstrable  facts.  More  than  that,  it  groups 
the  facts  from  which  it  draws  its  inferences  according  to  relations  of  cause 
and  effect.  Now,  the  great  increase  in  the  amount  of  crime  in  the  United 
States,  on  which  sensational  writers  for  the  press  delight  to  dwell,  in  the 
spirit  of  pessimism,  is  a  myth.  Having  twice  collected  and  collated  the 
statistics  of  crime  for  the  general  government,  both  in  the  last  census  and 
in  that  of  1880,  I  regard  myself  as  qualified  to  speak  with  some  authority 
on  this  question.  I  know,  and  have  repeatedly  said,  that  the  prison  statis¬ 
tics  of  the  census  prior  to  1880  are  hardly  worth  the  paper  on  which  they  are 
printed,  owing  to  the  defective  methods  used  in  procuring  them  and  the 
still  more  misleading  mode  of  their  presentation. 

At  best,  prison  statistics  are  a  poor  criterion  of  the  extent  of  crime  in 
any  community.  Where  they  are  published  in  a  lump  figure,  as  they  were 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


3 


before  my  connection  with  the  Census  Office,  without  distinction  as  to  the 
offenc*  s  charged  or  the  sentences  pronounced  by  the  courts,  their  value, 
even  if  we  assume  their  accuracy,  is  reduced  to  a  minimum.  A  real  in¬ 
crease  in  the  number  of  prisoners  may  be  due  either  to  an  addition  to  the 
list  of  offenses  punishable  by  incarceration,  or  to  greater  severity  on  the 
part  of  the  courts  in  dealing  with  them,  and  not  at  all  to  any  increase  in 
the  number  of  crimes  committed.  The  statistics  that  we  need,  and  which 
we  can  not  have  without  the  intervention  of  the  Department  of  Justice  at 
Washington,  are  judicial  statistics,  like  those  of  Great  Britain,  a  statistical 
record  of  court  proceedings  in  the  trial  and  conviction  of  offenders  against 
the  criminal  code.  In  the  absence  of  that  only  adequate  source  of  infor¬ 
mation,  our  inferences  from  the  census  are  liable  to  be  erroneous. 

WHAT  STATISTICS  SHOW. 

But  a  comparison  of  the  figures  for  1880  and  1890,  such  as  we  have 
them,  (and,  in  spite  of  all  the  criticism  made  upon  the  Eleventh  Census,  I 
am  prepared  to  stake  my  reputation  on  their  absolute  accuracy),  shows 
that,  while  the  population  of  the  United  States  has  increased  by  a  little 
more  than  22  per  cent,  during  the  decade,  the  number  of  convicts  in  our 
penitentiaries  has  increased  by  only  about  25  per  cent,  and  that  the  ratio  of 
penitentiary  convicts  to  the  total  population  in  1890  was  greater  than  that 
in  1880  by  only  13  to  the  milllion.  There  is  surely  no  ground  in  this 
statement  for  alarm  or  portentous  prognostications.  It  is  true  that  the 
ratio  of  convicts  in  the  minor  prisons — our  police  stations,  county  jails,  and 
houses  of  correction,  is  much  larger  than  it  was  ten  years  ago;  but  the 
men  and  women  confined  in  them  are  mainly  charged  with  pretty  misde¬ 
meanors,  which  do  not  rise  to  the  dignity  of  a  crime,  and  the  increase  in 
the  number  of  commitments  is  largely  due  to  greater  vigor  in  the  attempt 
to  suppress  drunkenness  and  disorder. 

If,  however,  the  examination  of  other  sources  of  information  than  the 
census  should  result  in  showing  that  in  some  limited  local  area  serious 
crime  has  increased  out  of  proportion  to  the  growth  of  the  population,  it 
would  by  no  means  follow  that  improved  prison  management  is  responsible 
for  such  increase.  It  is  far  more  reasonable  to  attribute  it  to  causes  oper¬ 
ating  outside  the  prisons,  to  altered  social  conditions,  to  increasing  wealth, 
the  growth  of  great  civic  centres  with  their  denser  population,  and  the  im¬ 
perfect  manner  in  which  the  laws  designed  to  suppress  the  causes  of  crime 
are  enforced,  particularly  in  cities.  The  increase  of  prison  population,  you 


4 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


will  observe,  is  precisely  in  those  prisons  which  prison  reform  has  least  in¬ 
fluenced  for  good;  in  the  prisons  where  its  precepts  are  most  ignored,  and 
where  least  effort  is  made  to  stem  the  rising  tide  of  crime  by  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  a  reformatory  discipline. 

PRISON  REFORM  IS  SCIENTIFIC. 

For  this  reason  I  call  the  opposition  to  prison  reform  unscientific. 
But  it  is  unscientific  for  another  reason.  If  science  teaches  anything,  it  is 
that  character  and  conduct  are  the  product  of  heredity  and  environment. 
We  can  not  alter  the  inheritance  of  a  man  arrested  on  a  criminal  charge, 
but  we  can  change  his  environment,  from  one  of  idleness  to  one  of  industry, 
from  ignorance  to  knowledge,  from  bad  to  good  sanitary  surroundings,  and 
we  can  surround  him  with  a  new  moral  and  religious  atmosphere.  It  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that  no  change  can  be  effected  in  him,  under  right  in¬ 
fluences,  intelligently  brought  to  bear  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time.  The 
question  is  one  of  methods  and  of  the  right  man  behind  them,  as  it  is  in 
medicine.  It  would  be  equally  rational  to  abandon  the  sick  and  the 
wounded  to  their  fate,  and  that  in  conditions  known  to  be  unfavorable  to 
their  recovery. 

PRISON  REFORM  BASED  UPON  RELIGION. 

But  the  charge  brought  against  you  has  no  better  foundation  in  reli¬ 
gion  than  in  science.  Religion  is  a  doctrine  concerning  God  and  a  doc¬ 
trine  concerning  man.  It  teaches  that  God  is  both  just  and  merciful;  that 
man  is  a  sinner,  but  that  he  may  be  forgiven  and  redeemed. 

If  there  is  one  sentence  in  the  Apostles’  Creed  which  I  repeat  with  a 
deeper  sense  of  its  truth  and  tenderness  than  any  other,  it  is  this  :  “I  be¬ 
lieve  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins.” 

Prison  reform  does  not  set  aside  the  justice  of  God,  nor  seek  to  para¬ 
lyze  the  arm  of  the  earthly  ruler,  the  minister  of  God,  when  he  declares 
and  enforces  the  penalty  of  transgression.  It  seeks  rather  to  sustain  him. 
It  believes  in  law,  upholds  the  law,  and  finds  the  justification  of  legal  pun¬ 
ishments  not  in  the  sentiment  of  vengeance  but  in  the  protection  of  society. 
The  advocates  of  the  indeterminate  sentence  go  so  far  as  to  declare  that 
the  man  whose  criminal  propensities  and  hahits  are  a  menace  to  public 
security  should  be  confined  for  life,  if  he  persists  in  their  indulgence. 

But  prison  reform  would  make  the  offer  of  pardon  to  a  criminal  no 
less  full  and  free  than  to  the  sinner,  and  it  would  found  this  offer,  as  the 
gospel  does,  upon  his  penitence  and  amendment.  It  would  bring  to  bear 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


5 


upon  the  criminal  every  influence,  it  would  appeal  to  every  motive,  which 
can  induce  him  to  accept  this  offer.  It  looks  upon  criminality  as  a  stain 
not  more  ineradicable  than  depravity.  If  there  is  hope  for  every  sinner, 
there  is  hope  for  every  convict. 

We  can  not  discriminate  between  meu  who  need  our  help.  Even  a 
dying  man  can  not  be  permitted  to  perish  without  the  ministrations  of  the 
living.  He  who  would  leave  the  worst  of  men  wallowing  in  his  guilt  and 
make  no  effort  to  kindle  in  his  soul  a  new  aspiration,  to  arouse  his  man¬ 
hood,  to  restore  him  to  self-respect,  to  save  him  from  sinking  deeper  yet 
into  the  slough  of  despond,  puts  himself  on  the  moral  plane  of  a  murderer. 
He  is  neither  a  good  Christian,  a  good  Jew,  a  good  Mussulman,  nor  a  good 
pagan. 

PRISON  REFORM  PAYS. 

Neither  is  this  charge  brought  in  the  interest  of  sound  finance.  What 
is  more  costly  than  crime?  What  would  add  more  to  the  wealth  of  the 
world  than  its  suppression?  There  are,  in  round  numbers,  100,000  men, 
women,  boys  and  girls  in  our  penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  who  cost, 
on  an  average,  for  their  custody  and  support  in  a  state  of  incarceration, 
over  and  above  what  they  are  able  to  earn,  not  less  than  $150  each  per 
year.  This  single  item  of  expense  aggregates  $15,000,000  annually. 

But  it  is  only  one  item  of  many,  which  go  to  swell  the  account  against 
crime.  Think  of  the  cost  of  arrests,  of  our  police  and  constabulary,  and  of 
convictions — of  the  courts,  with  their  officials,  witnesses,  and  attorneys. 
Think  of  the  losses  sustained  in  consequence  of  the  depredations  of  crimi¬ 
nals  at  large.  Think  of  the  enormous  expenses  involved  in  self-protection 
against  thieves — vaults,  safes,  alarms,  and  what  not.  We  hold  our  posses¬ 
sions,  great  or  small,  by  a  struggle  which  knows  no  end,  and  are  compelled 
to  pay  a  perpetual  tax  for  such  a  degree  of  security  as  will  enable  us  to 
sleep  at  night. 

ORGANIZED  EFFORT. 

The  Prison  Association  is  part  of  the  machinery  for  the  protection  of 
society  against  these  losses.  It  devotes  much  time  to  the  study  of  methods 
for  reducing  the  volume  of  crime  to  a  minimum.  It  concerns  itself  with 
the  question  of  better  police  as  well  as  of  better  prisons;  of  improved  crimi¬ 
nal  legislation  as  well  as  improved  prison  administration;  of  the  prevention 
of  crime  as  well  as  its  punishment.  If  it  favors  intelligent,  humane,  per¬ 
sistent  effort  for  the  reformation  of  criminals,  that  is  because  the  surest 


6 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


way  of  getting  rid  of  your  enemies  is  to  convert  them  into  fri  nds.  There 
is  no  safety  against  the  criminal,  except  in  his  reformation  or  incapacita¬ 
tion.  Of  the  two,  his  reformation,  if  it  can  be  effected,  costs  the  least  and 
affords  the  most  complete  protection  From  the  financial  point  of  view, 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  have  the  deepest  interest  in  the  successful  ac¬ 
complishment  of  the  task  which  this  Association  has  undertaken. 

The  cost  of  your  prison  system  is  neither  here  nor  there.  You  do  not 
expect  vour  hospitals  for  the  insane  to  be  self-sustaining.  The  cost  of  crime 
is  the  main  point.  Can  you,  by  spending  a  little  more  upon  your  prisons, 
avoid  the  necessity  for  spending  as  much  as  you  now  do  for  protection 
against  crime? 

IN  THE  INTEREST  OF  THE  LABORING  CLASSES. 

Prison  reform  is  as  truly  the  interest  of  the  laboring  man  as  it  is  of  (he 
capitalist.  I  sometimes  think  that  the  poor  know  this  better  than  the  rich. 
The  workingmen  of  America  have  a  much  more  intelligent  appreciation  of 
social  problems  and  their  solution  than  those  who  do  not  know  them  well 
are  aware.  They  understand  that  the  burden  of  taxation  falls  at  last  on 
labor,  and  that  the  existence  of  an  idle,  preda  ory  class  is  a  disgrace  to  men 
who  have  nothiug  in  common  with  them,  but  are  apt  to  be  confounded  with 
them  by  the  thoughtless  and  uninformed.  They  know,  too,  how  easily  the 
unsuccessful  laborer  drops  down  into  the  lower  level  of  crime.  Their  sym¬ 
pathies  are  with  every  movement  which  seems  to  them  calculated  to  lift 
men  up,  to  alleviate  the  suffering  incident  to  human  life,  and  to  make  the 
world  truly  better. 

THE  OPPOSITION  OF  POLITICIANS. 

But  of  all  men  in  whose  mouth  the  expression  of  hostility  to  the  work 
of  this  Association  lies  with  least  grace,  commend  me  to  the  professional 
politician — not  the  statesman  and  the  patriot,  but  the  demagogue  who  pur¬ 
chases  votes  at  the  sacrifice  of  principle  by  pandering  to  the  degradation 
of  human  nature.  How  can  he  who  believes  in  no  higher  motive  than  that 
of  self-interest,  who  has  not  the  mental  capacity  to  see  that  our  personal 
interests  are  promoted  by  the  public  welfare  and  in  no  other  way,  compre¬ 
hend  the  love  which  is  ever  ready  to  make  sacrifices  for  the  elevation  of 
the  lowly  and  the  regeneration  of  the  lost? 

There  are  two  sorts  of  politics,  of  which  one  aims  at  power  through 
the  sale  of  office,  the  other  through  the  service  of  the  people.  The  one  be¬ 
lieves  in  policy,  the  other  in  principle.  The  one  places  good  government 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


7 


before  all  other  considerations;  the  other  will  stoop  to  any  kind  of  govern¬ 
ment  which  will  ensure  party  success.  The  one  represents  the  best  and  the 
other  tiie  worst  element  in  our  national  life.  The  one  believes  in  prison 
reform,  the  other  flouts  it.  I  believe  that  in  the  struggle  between  these 
two  for  existence,  the  survival  of  the  fittest  will  be  the  triumph  of  the  high¬ 
est  type  of  manhood  in  the  government  of  a  free  and  intelligent  people; 
that  in  standing  for  the  principles  which  you  represent  you  have  obeyed 
Emerson’s  injunction  to  hitch  your  wagon  to  a  star.  As  that  star  rises 
above  the  rim  of  the  Atlantic  you  will  rise  with  it,  and  mounting  constant¬ 
ly  higher,  reach  the  zenith,  to  set  no  more. 

WHAT  THE  PRISON  ASSOCIATION  REPRESENTS. 

For  you  stand  for  everything  that  is  true  in  science  or  religion,  every¬ 
thing  that  is  right  in  morals,  everything  that  is  humane  in  life,  everything 
that  is  politic  in  government,  everything  that  is  sound  in  finance.  If  truth 
is  stronger  than  error,  you  are  stronger  than  all  your  detractors.  If  right 
must  ultimately  prevail  over  wrong,  the  final  victory  of  your  principles  is 
assured.  To  believe  otherwise  would  be  to  dethrone  the  Almighty  and  put 
the  arch  enemy  in  his  place. 

Let  us  consider,  just  for  a  moment,  in  closing,  what  you  do  represent. 
If  I  understand  your  purposes  aright,  you  do  not  simply  aim  to  dole  out 
temporary  aid  to  discharged  prisoners,  but  to  educate  the  community  of 
which  you  form  a  part,  to  help  develop  public  opinion  in  favor  of  better 
methods  of  dealing  not  only  with  convicts  but  with  crime.  You  base  your 
work,  not  on  sentiment,  but  on  information,  and  are  willing  to  take  the 
pains  necessary  to  acquire  it.  You  propose  to  study  the  prison  question, 
and  when  you  speak,  to  speak  with  the  authority  which  is  inseparable  from 
the  truth. 

You  want  more  just  and  equitable  criminal  laws,  and  a  firmer 
administration  of  them. 

You  want  fewer  arrests  and  more  convictions.  You  want  less  legal 
quibbling  in  your  courts,  not  so  many  needless  delays,  and  fewer  miscar¬ 
riages  of  justice. 

You  want  sentences  for  crime  which  are  not  a  travesty  upon  every 
principle  which  ought  to  characterize  a  criminal  code  and  its  enforcement. 

You  want  better  men  in  charge  of  your  prisons,  from  the  warden  down 
to  the  turnkey,  and  when  you  get  a  good  man  there,  you  want  him  kept 
there. 


8 


WHAT  IS  PRISON  REFORM. 


You  want  such  tests  applied  to  men  in  prison  as  will  enable  you  to 
distinguish  between  the  corrigible  and  the  incorrigible. 

You  want  to  empty  your  prison  cells  of  the  corrigible  as  fast  as  pos¬ 
sible,  and  to  retain  the  incorrigible  permanently  confined,  at  least  until 
they  are  no  longer  dangerons  to  life  or  property. 

You  want  to  see  prisoners  leave  the  walls  better  men,  not  worse,  than 
when  they  entered. 

You  want  such  a  state  of  things  as  will  justify  a  right-minded  employer 
in  giving  employment  to  every  discharged  convict,  so  that  he  may  be 
classed  as  a  workingman,  not  as  a  pauper. 

You  want  to  see  the  date  of  his  discharge  made  to  depend  upon  his 
progress  in  regaining  his  lost  self-control,  and  the  reality  of  his  reformation 
tested  by  a  period  of  probation  on  the  outside. 

You  are  opposed  to  the  herding  of  prisoners  together,  to  their  associa¬ 
tion  in  idleness,  and  especially  to  the  mingling  of  the  sexes  in  prison,  or  of 
children  with  adults,  or  of  the  innocent  with  the  guilty. 

You  are  opposed  to  all  systems  of  prison  labor  and  to  all  arrangements 
for  the  payment  of  fees  which  give  to  any  human  being  a  personal  pecuniary 
interest  in  the  commitment  or  detention  of  prisoners. 

You  are  opposed  to  all  rules,  regulations,  and  punishments  which  tend 
te  degrade  men  in  their  own  sight  and  that  of  others. 

You  are  opposed  to  the  subordination  of  prison  appointments  and  pri¬ 
son  discipline  to  the  supposed  exigencies  of  party  politics. 

You  believe  in  the  suppression  of  crime  by  putting  as  effectual  res¬ 
traints  as  may  be  possible  upon  the  operation  of  the  causes  which  foster 
the  growth  of  crime,  including  the  saloon,  the  gambling-hell,  and  the 
brothel. 

You  believe  in  special  pains  to  prevent  the  growth  of  crime  by  early 
care  of  children  exposed  to  its  contaminating  influences;  by  giving  to  every 
child  in  the  community  a  happy  home,  a  fair  education,  and  the  opportu¬ 
nity  and  disposition  to  earn  his  or  her  own  livelihood  by  honest  labor. 

Are  these  your  principles  and  aims?  T  ask  every  man  and  woman  in 
this  audience,  who  stands  upon  this  platform,  to  rise  for  one  moment  to 
your  feet. 

It  is  well.  If,  now,  you  will  propagate  the  principles  which  you  pro¬ 
fess,  if  you  will  press  them  upon  the  attention  of  all  who  form  public  opinion 
by  speech  or  writing,  and  especially  upon  the  attention  of  your  legislators 
and  judges,  you  will  be  invincible. 


Has  Grime  Increased  in  Massachusetts  ? 


BY  WARREN  F.  SPALDING, 
Secretary  of  Massachusetts  Prison  Association. 


Reprinted  from  the  Forum  for  January,  1892,  by  the  Massachusetts  Prison 
Association,  No.  1  Pemberton  Square,  Boston. 

1892. 


NOTE.  This  pamphlet  is  reprinted  from  the  January  (1892)  number  of  The 
Forum.  A  later  examination  of  the  official  records  shows  that  the  figures  used  by 
Mr.  Andrews  in  his  article  in  the  October  (1891)  number  of  The  Forum,  quoted  here¬ 
in,  on  Page  1,  had  no  reference  whatever  to  prisoners.  They  are  taken  from  the 
Attorney  General’s  report,  and  refer  to  convictions  secured  in  the  year  1838,  in  cases 
in  the  higher  courts,  conducted  by  the  several  district  attorneys.  They  did  not  in¬ 
clude  cases  disposed  of  in  the  lower  courts,  which  numbered  more  than  four  thousand 
each  year.  The  number  of  prisoners  remaining  at  the  end  of  the  year  1838  was 
almost  identical  with  the  number  of  convictions  in  the  higher  courts  that  year,  viz., 
852.  The  first  official  record  of  prisoners  remaining  began  in  1841.  The  average 
number  of  prisoners  in  confinement  November  1,  1841,  ’42,  ’43  and  ’44  was  928.  It 
could  not  have  varied  much  from  852  in  1838.  It  was  certainly  not  less,  for  the  num¬ 
ber  of  con  vie  cions  did  not  vary  materially,  from  1838  to  1841.  W.  F.  S. 


Has  Grime  Increased  in  JVIassaehasetts? 


In  an  article  in  the  October  number  of  the  Forum,  Mr.  W.  P.  Andrews 
makes  use  of  certain  facts  as  to  the  course  of  crime  in  Massachusetts,  to 
prove  that  the  more  humane  treatment  of  prisoners  in  later  years  has  in¬ 
creased  criminality.  Even  if  the  facts  were  as  he  states  them,  I  should 
take  issue  with  him  as  to  the  cause  of  the  increase.  But  my  main  object 
in  this  paper  is  to  show  that  he  has  only  partially  stated  the  facts,  and  that 
some  of  them  were,  by  inadvertence,  misstated.  Three  times  in  his  article 
Mr.  Andrews  declares  that  while  the  population  has  trebled  since  1838,  the 
number  of  prisoners  has  increased  fifty-fold.  Once  he  uses  these  words: 

“We  must  not  forget  that  while,  in  the  last  fifty  years,  the  population 
has  increased  from  737,700  to  2,238,943 — that  is,  has  about  trebled — the 
number  of  prisoners  has  meanwhile  increased  fifty-fold — 852  prisoners  in 
1838,  against  44,908  in  1890.” 

The  error  in  this  statement  lies  in  the  fact  that  a  comparison  is  made 
between  figures  which  have  no  relation  to  each  other.  The  852  prisoners 
in  1838  were  those  remaining  at  the  end  of  the  official  year.  The  44,908 
prisoners  of  1890  were  those  committed  during  the  year,  and  even  these 
are  stated  as  one- third  larger  than  they  were,  doubtless  inadvertently,  the 
official  reports  showing  the  number  of  commitments  in  1890  to  have  been 
33,290.  The  comparison  should  have  been  made  between  the  852  prisoners 
remaining  in  prison  in  1838  and  the  5,739  remaining  in  1890.  The  increase 
in  the  prison  population  has  been  seven-fold,  instead  of  fifty-fold.  In 
other  words,  the  criminal  uopulation  has  increased  a  little  more  than  twice 
as  rapidly  as  the  entire  population. 

There  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  seriousness  of  even  this 
rate  of  increase,  but  in  order  to  understand  its  full  meaning  the  figures 


2 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


given  must  be  studied  in  connection  with  others.  The  condition  of  affairs 
at  intermediate  dates  between  1838  and  1890  is  important.  The  more 
lenient  methods  of  treatment  did  not  begin  to  prevail  until  after  the  war. 
In  the  period  from  1838  (the  starting-point  of  Mr.  Andrews)  to  1861  the 
punitive  system  prevailed.  The  growth  of  crime  in  that  period,  and  from 
1861  to  1890,  and  the  percentage  of  increase  are  shown  in  this  table : 


Years. 

Population. 

Number  of 
Prisoners. 

Proportion  t% 
Population. 

Percentage  of 
Increase. 

1838 . 

700,000 

852 

1  in  822;  or  121  +  in  100,000 

1851 . 

994,514 

1,640 

1  in  606;  or  165  +  in  100,000 

35  -f 

1861 . 

1,231,066 

2,634 

1  in  467;  or  214  -f  in  100,000 

29  + 

1890 . 

2,238,943 

5,739 

Iin390;or256  +  in  100,000 

19  + 

In  the  ten  years  from  1841  to  1851  the  number  of  persons  in  prison  at 
the  end  of  the  years  increased  from  990  to  1,640,  or  65  per  cent.  In  the 
same  period  the  population  of  the  State  increased  only  34  per  cent.  In 
other  words,  the  number  of  criminals  increased  almost  twice  as  rapidly  as 
the  population  did.  In  the  ten  years  from  1851  to  1861  the  number  of 
prisoners  remaining  increased  from  1,640  to  2,634,  equal  to  more  than  60 
per  cent.,  while  the  whole  population  increased  only  23  -|-  per  cent. 
During  this  decade  the  Boston  House  of  Industry  was  established.  Its  in¬ 
mates  are  included  in  the  figures  for  1861. 

The  population  of  the  State  during  the  two  decades,  1841  to  1861,  in¬ 
creased  67  -|-  per  cent,  and  the  prison  population  more  than  166  per  cent, 
or  from  one  in  822  of  the  population  in  1838  to  one  in  467  in  1861.  Many 
persons  find  it  difficult  to  understand  the  real  meaning  of  the  proportion  of 
prisoners  to  population  when  stated  in  this  form.  Mr.  Andrews  apparent¬ 
ly  misunderstands  it,  for  he  says: 

“If  in  fifty  years  the  ratio  of  prisoners  to  population  has  been  reduced 
[he  means  increased]  from  one  in  800  to  one  in  400,  will  the  next  fifty  years 
take  off  the  remaining  400,  and  shall  we  become  a  nation  of  criminals  ?” 

The  absurdity  of  the  question  will  be  seen  if  I  state  the  facts  in  an¬ 
other  form:  The  number  of  criminals  has  increased  from  121  -j-  in 
100,000  in  1838  to  256  in  100,000  in  1890.  Will  the  same  rate  of  increase 
in  the  next  half-century  make  us  a  nation  of  criminals?  Not  at  all.  There 
are  now  99,744  non-prisoners  in  each  100,000  of  the  population.  If  the 
number  of  prisoners  should  be  doubled,  there  would  still  be  99,488  persons 
out  of  prison  to  512  in  confinement.  If  the  crime-class  should  continue  to 
increase  at  the  rate  of  256  in  100,000  in  each  fifty  years,  it  would  require 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


3 


nineteen  thousand  years  to  bring  about  the  suggested  catastrophe,  and 
change  the  99,744  virtuous  persons  into  criminals. 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  compare  the  growth  of  crime  in  the  period 
when  the  punitive  system  prevailed  with  the  increase  in  the  years  in  which 
greater  leniency  may  possibly  have  been  shown.  In  the  years  from  1838 
to  1861  the  increase  was  from  121  -|-  to  214  -|-  in  100,000,  or  76  per 
cent.  In  the  twenty-nine  years  from  1861  to  1890  it  was  from  214  -|-  to 
^56  -f-  in  100,000,  or  only  19  -f-  per  cent.  The  number  of  prisoners  has 
not  yet  begun  to  show  a  decrease,  but  the  rate  of  increase  has  been  les¬ 
sened.  We  are  not  “going  to  the  bad”  as  rapidly  as  we  were  from  1840  to 
1860.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  improvement  is  due  to  any  change  in  the 
prison  system.  I  merely  mention  it  to  show  how  groundless  is  the  assump¬ 
tion  that  by  improving  the  lot  of  the  prisoner  we  have  increased  crime. 

In  all  studies  of  statistics  of  crime,  we  need  to  keep  in  mind  the  kind 
of  offences  committed,  as  well  as  the  changes  in  the  proportion  of  prisoners 
to  population.  We  have  official  figures  from  1841  to  1858,  showing  the 
number  of  commitments  for  various  classes  of  crimes.  (The  number  of 
commitments  in  a  year  should  not  be  confounded  with  the  number  of  pri¬ 
soners  remaining  at  the  end  of  the  year.)  The  number  of  commitments  in 
1841,  1846,  1851, 1858,  1880,  1885,  and  1890  was  as  follows:— 


Offences. 

1841 

1846 

1851 

1858 

1880 

1885 

1890 

Assault .  .... 

Burglary . 

Forgery . 

Homicide . 

Larceny . 

Coiintfirffiit  mrmfty  . 

243 

12 

19 

6 

595 

4 

496 

36 

13 

12 

1,082 

25 

877 

139 

20 

13 

1,457 

44 

1,562 

221 

41 

40 

2,320 

119 

1,578 

173 

11 

10 

1,518 

1,754 

271 

41 

16 

2,031 

1,732 

267 

27 

12 

1,754 

Total . 

Drunkenness . 

All  other  offences . 

879 

1,143 

1,670 

1,664 

2,816 

1,275 

2,550 

3,850 

3,441 

4,303 

5,490 

4,011 

3,290 

See 

4,113 

later  ta 

3,792 

bles. 

Total . 

3,692 

5,755 

9,841 

13,804 

From  1841  to  1858  the  commitments  for  six  prominent  offences  against  the 
person  and  against  property  increased  382  -|-  per  cent,  and  the  commit¬ 
ments  for  all  offences  273  -|-  per  cent.  This  was  in  the  days  when  there 
was  no  “sentiment”  in  prison  management. 

So  much  for  the  past.  But  how  about  the  present?  The  statistics  of 
crime  in  Massachusetts,  since  1881,  are  very  complete.  The  credit  of  this 
for  recent  years  is  due  to  the  secretary  of  the  Commissioners  of  Prisons, 


4 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


Mr.  Fred  G.  Pettigrove,  who  deservedly  holds  a  high  rank  as  a  statistician. 
From  1861  to  1881  the  figures  are  incomplete,  but  this  makes  little  differ¬ 
ence,  because  the  principal  changes  h  ive  taken  place  since  1881. 

The  number  of  commitments  to  all  the  prisons  of  the  State,  including 
the  reformatories  for  adults,  were  as  follows: — 


1881  . 17,062 

1882  . .22,865 

1883  . 24,125 

1884  . 26,739 

1885  . 26,651 


1886.. . 

. ...25,458 

1887 . 

. 26,825 

1888 . 

. 30,683 

1889 . 

. 34,094 

1890 . . 

. . 33,290 

Before  the  meaning  of  these  figures  is  estimated,  it  is  important  to  as¬ 
certain  how  this  increase  of  nearly  100  per  cent,  is  made  up,  and  what  of 
fences  have  increased.  It  is  found  that  the  increase  in  commitments  for 
offences  against  the  person  was  only  about  8  per  cent.  The  increase  in 
commitments  for  offences  against  property  was  a  little  more  than  14  per 
cent.  In  the  same  period  the  population  of  the  State  increased  more  than 
25  per  cent.  These  two  classes  of  offences  are  universally  recognized  as 
crimes,  while  the  offences  against  public  order  stand  on  a  different  basis. 

Turning  once  more  to  the  last  but  one  of  the  preceding  tables,  we  shall 
gather  some  important  facts  regarding  the  course  of  real  crime.  The  com¬ 
mitments  for  larceny  in  1885  were  exceptionally  large.  In  1884  there 
were  but  1,871,  and  in  1886  there  were  only  1,671.  But  taking  the  figures 
as  they  stand,  they  make  a  remarkable  showing.  From  1841  to  1846  the 
commitments  for  these  offences  increased  89  -f-  per  cent;  from  1846  to 
1851  they  increased  53 -|- per  cent,  and  in  the  next  seven  years,  from 
1851  to  1858,  they  increased  68  -|-  per  cent.  But  in  the  five  years  from 
1880  to  1885  the  increase  was  only  25  -j-  per  cent,  and  in  the  last  five 
years  there  has  been  an  actual  decrease  in  commitments  for  each  of  these 
offences.  More  than  this,  as  the  same  table  shows,  there  were  actually 
fewer  commitments  for  these  offences  in  1890  than  there  were  in  1858  ! 
(It  will  be  noticed  that  making  and  passing  counterfeit  money,  for  which 
there  were  119  commitments  in  1858,  has  practically  ceased.)  The  figures 
reveal  a  marvellous  improvement  in  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Massachu¬ 
setts,  so  far  as  serious  offences  are  concerned,  since  1858,  there  beiug  an 
actual  decrease  in  the  number  of  commitments  for  them,  though  the  popu¬ 
lation  has  substantially  doubled. 

Where,  then,  has  been  the  enormous  increase  which  the  aggregates 
show?  Solely  in  offences  against  public  order  and  decency,  such  as  adultery, 
night  walking,  disturbing  the  peace,  drunkenness,  being  idle  and  disorderly, 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


5 


violation  of  liquor  laws,  vagrancy,  and  the  like, — the  vices  of  the  people,  or 
the  results  of  their  vices.  The  course  of  affairs  in  this  direction  is  indicated 
in  the  following  table,  showing  the  number  of  commitments  for  drunken¬ 
ness  and  all  other  offences  against  public  order,  in  each  of  the  last  eleven 
years : — 


Years. 

Drunk¬ 

enness 

All 

Other.* 

Total. 

Years. 

Drunk¬ 

enness. 

All 

Other. 

Total. 

1880 . 

10,962 

10,930 

16,769 

17,854 

19.564 

18,701 

2,312 

2,223 

2,122 

2,259 

2,705 

3,153 

13,274 

13,153 

18,891 

20,113 

22,269 

21,854 

1886 . 

17,981 

19,952 

23,407 

25,879 

25,686 

3,258 

2,773 

3,031 

3,548 

3,236 

21,239 

22,725 

26,438 

29,427 

28,922 

1881 . 

1887 . 

1882 . 

1888 . 

1883 . 

1889 . 

1884 . 

1890 . 

1885 . 

*  Against  public  order. 

The  increase  of  commitments  to  Massachusetts  prisons  has  been,  as 
will  be  seen,  entirely  in  drunkenness.  Even  the  kindred  offences  have  in¬ 
creased  far  less  in  proportion  than  drunkenness  has.  We  are  not  becoming 
a  nation  of  criminals,  but  we  are  overwhelmed  by  a  great  tide  of  drunken¬ 
ness  and  kindred  vices.  If,  instead  of  commitments,  we  consider  the  prison 
population  at  any  given  date,  we  find  the  same  fact  prominent.  With  a 
population  of  more  than  two  and  a  quarter  millions,  Massachusetts  held  in 
prison,  in  September,  1890,  only  601  persons  sentenced  for  offences  against 
the  person,  and  only  1,545  for  offences  against  property,  a  total  of  2,146,  or 
less  than  one  for  each  thousand  of  the  population. 

The  commitments  for  drunkenness  in  1841  were  1,143  in  a  total  of 
3,692  for  all  offences.  In  1890  they  were  25,686  in  a  total  of  33,290.  Ex¬ 
cluding  the  commitments  for  drunkenness,  the  commitments  in  1841  were 
2,813.  In  1890  they  were  7,450  (the  commitments  to  the  State  Prison  be¬ 
ing  omitted  in  both  cases).  The  population  of  the  State  had  trebled.  If 
the  number  of  commitments  for  other  offences  than  drunkenness  had  in¬ 
creased  at  th  *  same  rate,  they  would  have  been  8,439.  They  were  only 
7,450.  In  other  words,  the  increase  in  the  commitments  for  serious  '  of¬ 
fences  was  not  as  large  by  about  twelve  per  cent,  as  the  increase  in  popula¬ 
tion. 

It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  take  space  to  refer  to  the  large  business 
of  the  inferior  courts,  farther  than  to  say  that  it  consists  mainly  of  cases  of 
drunkenness  and  kindred  offences.  Of  the  81,255  cases  begun  in  the  lower 
courts,  sentences  were  imposed  in  only  66,922.  In  the  Superior  Court 
2,158  more  sentences  were  imposed,  making  a  total  of  69,080.  In  other 
words  in  about  13,000  cases  guilt  was  not  proved,  or  the  offences  were  too 


6 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


trivial  to  warrant  sentences.  Sixty-five  thousand  three  hundred  and  ninety- 
six  of  the  81,255  cases  were  for  offences  against  public  order,  and  51,466 
of  these  were  for  drunkenness.  There  were,  in  the  entire  State,  for  the 
year,  only  8,102  cases  begun  in  the  lower  courts  for  offences  against  the 
person — many  of  them  petty  assaults — and  only  7,757  cases  of  offences 
against  property — many  of  them  petty  larcenies.  Though  Massachusetts 
punishes  many  offences  which  are  not  noticed  anywhere  else,  this  record 
cannot  be  equalled  in  any  other  State,  as  showing  exemption  from  serious 
offences. 

This  progress  has  been  made  in  spite  of  two  great  demoralizing  in¬ 
fluences — the  war  and  immigration.  In  no  other  country  has  war  had  so 
few  evil  results,  but  its  effects  are  still  felt  in  the  morals  of  the  people,  to 
some  extent.  The  demoralization  caused  by  immigration  was  much  greater, 
and  is  more  easily  traced.  The  following  table  will  show  at  a  glance  some¬ 
thing  of  its  effect.  The  figures  represent  the  commitments  to  the  county 
prisons,  and  the  proportion  of  native-born  and  foreign-born  persons  com¬ 
mitted: — 


Years. 

Native  born 

Foreign-born. 

Per.  cent  native. 

Per  cent  foreign. 

1841 . 

3,167 

1,357 

70  + 

29  -f 

1851 . 

6,556 

5,072 

56  + 

43  + 

1861 . 

4,115 

6,992 

37  + 

62  -f 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  number  of  commitments  of  native-born  prison¬ 
ers  was  actually  smaller  by  more  than  one-third,  in  1861  than  it  was  in 
1851.  If  we  continue  this  inquiry,  we  find  that  though  9,426  of  the  18,- 
222  persons  committed  to  county  prisons  in  1890  were  born  in  this 
country,  only  2,860  had  American-born  parents. 

Remembering  that  during  the  past  half-century  we  have  absorbed 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  foreigners,  who  had  been  reared  in  a  different 
atmosphere,  the  wonder  is  that  we  should  be  able  to  say  that  acts  which 
are  universally  recognized  as  crimes  have  decreased  in  Massachusetts  in 
proportion  to  the  population.  So  much  of  the  Massachusetts  of  1841  as  is 
reproduced  in  1891,  is  far  better  than  it  was  half  a  century  ago — more 
honest,  more  temperate,  more  virtuous.  It  is  also  true  that  there  has 
been  a  steady  improvement  in  the  character  of  our  foreign  population, 
under  the  influence  of  our  institutions.  That  there  should  be  a  large  pau¬ 
per  and  criminal  residuum  is  to  be  expected,  but  there  were  never  so  many 
honest,  temperate,  and  virtuous  persons  of  foreign  birth  and  parentage  in 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


7 


Massachusetts  as  there  are  to-day.  A  comparatively  small  number  give  a 
bad  name  to  the  mass  of  our  foreign-born  population.  But  in  spite  of  the 
great  influx  of  persons  reared  without  the  advantages  of  our  civilization, 
we  have  more  than  held  our  own,  as  a  State,  in  the  struggle  against  crime, 
though  we  have  failed  to  keep  down  the  vices. 

There  may  be  those  who  do  not  see  the  reason  for  making  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  more  serious  offences  and  the  misdemeanors.  The  dis¬ 
tinction  may  seem  an  arbitrary  one,  but  an  examination  shows  that  there 
is  a  well-defined  line  of  separation.  There  are  certain  acts  which  are  uni¬ 
versally  recognized  and  treated  as  crimes.  They  include  murder,  assault, 
robbery,  burglary,  larceny,  embezzlement,  and  the  like.  There  are  other 
acts  which  are  crimes  in  one  State  and  are  unnoticed  elsewhere.  If  any 
good  citizen  should  see  a  man  snatch  a  pair  of  shoes,  he  would  feel  under 
obligation  to  cry  “stop  thief.”  If  he  saw  a  burglar  breaking  into  a  house, 
he  would  endeavor  to  secure  his  arrest.  If  he  witnessed  an  assault,  he 
would  call  the  police.  Every  good  citizen  feels  a  personal  interest  in  pre¬ 
venting  these  offences,  and  in  securing  the  arrest  of  those  who  commit  them. 
But  no  one  has  the  same  feeling  about  offences  aganist  public  order  and 
decency.  Neither  the  government  nor  the  offender  nor  the  good  citizen 
looks  upon  offences  against  public  order  in  the  same  way  that  he  looks 
upon  offences  against  the  person  or  against  property,  and  it  must  be  ap¬ 
parent  that  in  considering  the  question  of  the  increase  or  decrease  of  crime, 
the  same  discrimination  should  be  made.  The  causes,  effects,  and  methods 
of  treatment  are  different.  In  saying  this  I  would  not  be  understood  as 
conveying  the  impression  that  the  misdemeanors  are  of  little  consequence, 
for  I  regard  drunkenness,  vagrancy,  and  the  like,  in  some  of  their  aspects, 
as  even  more  serious  than  offences  against  person  and  property.  I  only 
bespeak  intelligent  discrimination  in  the  study  of  statistics  of  crime. 

From  what  I  have  said  it  will  be  inferred,  and  properly,  that  I  disa¬ 
gree  emphatically  with  the  assumption  that  the  increase  in  crime  during 
the  last  half-century  is  due  to  sentimentalism  in  prison  management.  I 
have  shown  that  there  was  a  larger  increase  in  crime  when  the  strictly  punu 
tive  system  was  in  force,  than  there  has  been  latterly,  and  that  in  spite  of 
the  war  and  demoralizing  immigration,  we  have  kept  down  the  figures  which 
represent  everything  except  vice.  No  one  will  contend  that  the  increase  in 
drunkenness  is  due  to  excessive  leniency  in  the  treatment  of  prisoners. 

The  drift  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Andrews  seems  to  be  against  the  re¬ 
formatory  system,  but  it  will  be  noticed  that  all  his  illustrations  are  drawn 


8 


CRIME  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


from  strictly  punitive  institutions, — the  Boston  House  of  Industry  and 
the  county  prisons,  where  nothing  is  done  with  a  definite  purpose  to  reform 
the  prisoner.  That  men  return  to  those  institutions  scores  of  times  is  true, 
but  this  should  not  be  charged  to  the  reformatories,  to  which  comparatively 
few  return.  They  are  responsible  for  those  only  who  are  treated  bv  them, 
— less  than  a  thousand  a  year  out  of  the  more  than  thirty-three  thousand  who 
are  committed  each  year  to  Massachusetts  prisons.  The  reformatory  sys¬ 
tem  must  be  judged  by  its  own  results  upon  those  submitted  to  it,  and  its 
friends  court  a  comparison  of  these  results  with  those  attained  under  the 
most  severe  of  punitive  systems. 

Prison  reformers  are  a  unit  against  the  whole  system  of  brief  senten¬ 
ces  to  merely  penal  institutions.  They  contend  that  where  imprisonment 
is  necessary,  it  should  be  for  a  term  long  enough  to  permit  an  effort  for  the 
reformation  of  the  offender,  and  that  whenever  any  human  being  comes 
into  custody,  the  State  should  avail  itself  of  the  opportunity  to  secure  that 
change  of  character  which  will  prevent  his  return  to  a  life  of  crime. 

But  when  all  has  been  done  that  can  be  done  to  make  the  prison  sys¬ 
tem  better,  it  will  be  found  that  the  prison  cannot  be  depended  upon  to  re¬ 
duce  crime.  Fear  of  imprisonment  may  deter  a  good  man  from  yielding 
to  a  great  temptation,  but  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  crime  class  con¬ 
sists  of  “good  men  gone  'wrong.”  A  much/  larger  percentage  consists  of 
men  and  women  badly  born  and  badly  reared,  whose  instincts,  desires, 
impulses  and  environments  have  always  been  wrong,  to  some  extent.  To 
this  class  of  persons,  imprisonment,  no  matter  how  severe,  can  never  have 
much  restraining  power. 

Crime  can  no  more  be  reduced  by  punishing  (or  even  reforming)  the 
criminal,  than  an  epidemic  of  smallpox  can  be  stopped  by  curing  its  vic¬ 
tims.  The  criminal  is  a  product,  and  crime  can  be  decreased  only  by 
stopping  the  production.  Wise  prison  methods  will  result  in  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  many  who  have  fallen,  but  until  methods  are  devised  for  keeping 
men  from  becoming  criminals,  little  comfort  can  be  obtained  from  statis¬ 
tics  of  crime.  Multiply  and  apply  the  agencies  which  have  kept  the  other 
three  hundred  and  ninety-nine  virtuous  and  honest,  and  the  other  one  in 
four  hundred  may  be  kept  out  of  the  criminal  ranks.  Reduce  the  agencies 
which  make  men  vicious,  and  the  solution  of  the  problem  will  be  com¬ 
paratively  easy.  The  responsibility  for  the  increase  of  crime,  when  there 
is  an  increase,  rests  upon  society,  and  not  upon  sentimentalism  in  prison 
management. 


